Code review that runs the code, not just reads it.
Every pull request executes in an isolated sandbox before it can merge. The verdict comes from real behavior: the full suite runs against the base branch, every dependency resolves against a real registry, and findings hold the merge button until they clear.
A pull request opens.
It arrives carrying human edits, AI-generated code, and fresh dependencies. Autter tags who wrote what, because generated code earns extra scrutiny. The diff says what changed. It cannot say what the change will do.
Autter already knows the territory.
Your code, APIs, schema, routes, tests, and owners are already mapped into product memory. The change lands on that map, so the review starts from its full blast radius, not just the lines in the diff.
The change is traced to real journeys.
Signup, checkout, uploads, webhooks. Autter follows the diff outward to every user journey it can touch, then probes the edges with malformed inputs and boundary cases, because that is where production breaks first.
Tests appear where the diff landed.
From the code graph and each affected journey, Autter writes unit, API, and integration tests around the change, fills the coverage gaps it finds, and re-forges any flaky test before it can lie to you.
The verdict comes from running it.
The pull request executes in an isolated sandbox while the rest of the queue waits. The full suite runs against your base branch, so the verdict reports what the code did, not what it looks like.
Findings arrive like a senior engineer wrote them.
Each one lands pinned to the exact line, ranked by severity, with a proposed fix attached. The author pushes, Autter re-reviews just the delta, and every finding resolves the moment its fix actually lands.
Nothing unverified reaches main.
Every change and dependency files through the registry gate. Phantom packages, leaked secrets, and removed auth are pulled off the line before they can ship. Everything clean clears green.
The merge lands with proof behind it.
The button unlocks with the evidence attached: the suite that ran, the dependencies that resolved, the findings that closed. The codebase absorbs the change protected, and the next pull request starts the loop again.
What the gate checks.
Six checks run on every pull request, and scrutiny scales with how much of the codebase a change can reach.
Sandbox execution
Your code actually runs in an isolated sandbox on every pull request. The verdict comes from watching it behave, not from reading it.
Dependency verification
Every import is confirmed against real registries, so hallucinated packages never reach your main branch.
AI authorship classification
Every change is classified as human-written or AI-generated, and generated code gets proportionally more scrutiny.
Blast-radius scrutiny
A one-line change to a shared helper deserves more attention than a hundred lines in a leaf module. Autter looks harder the further a change reaches.
Security review
Exposed credentials, removed authentication, and known vulnerabilities get caught before deploy, not after.
Findings with fixes
Every finding ships with an explanation and a proposed fix, not just a verdict, because the maintainer is the customer.
A check you can ignore is just advice.
Autter blocks the merge button, and that is non-negotiable. Reading code is not running it, and execution is the only pre-production check that catches what static analysis cannot see.